That pecular American Way of selecting our leadership

The political process by which we Americans whittle down the many candidates to the two individuals who will represent each of the two major parties had been on display this season for all the world to wonder at.

Living in Europe as I currently am, I am amazed at the interest that my European colleagues have taken in the candidates. They've been keenly interested, and asked me many probing questions about the process. It has forced me to pay more attention to my own country's process for determining who will be the next leader we call "Commander-in-Chief".

I had previously thought that the push for many states to move their primaries earlier in the year was a bad thing. I felt it would truncate an already too-short opportunity to really learn what the candidates are about before they are running a "national" campaign. Only in the primary season, I reasoned, were candidates accessible by the public. Thanks to our national media, what a candidate answers to a question in Iowa no longer stays in Iowa, but is transmitted around the nation and reported on (sometimes ad nauseum). But that is good, because the answer in our global economy is relevant in Hawaii and Alaska and Florida and New York, too.

Gone are the days when politicians can routinely get away with telling different audiences conflicting things because that is what they want to hear. Remember Obama's San Francisco comments about Pennsylvania religious gun owners!

Here are some suggestions on how to further improve the process with the goal of really finding the best candidates for President... not just the most electable. And, along the way, likely generating some truly revolutionary solutions to the problems of our times:

1. Get rid of the "Super Delegates" the Democrats are using. From the party that whined so loudly about the Electoral College win that put George Bush in the White House in 2000 (but, gee, Al won the popular vote, it isn't fair!) it seems awfully strange and counter to democratic principles to have folks that are unaccountable to the voters be able to make the decision. True, at this point, it looks like they will follow the general will of the voters of their respective states... but they don't have to. And who knows if the Clinton machine has something that will swing them all to Hillary's camp at the last minute? Leave it to the voters entirely!

2. The GOP should adopt a similar proportional system as the Democrats are using. "Winner takes all" shouldn't be the case for the primaries (nor, really, for the general election, in my opinion). I'm not saying to go straight with the popular vote, however. It should be based on the congressional districts. If a district is won by a candidate, that candidate gets the district's affiliated delegates. The overall winner of the state then gets two "at large" delegates as well.

3. Keep the results of each state's primary or caucus secret until the convention. This would keep each candidate fully engaged in the process through the end. Each state would be relevant, regardless of if it was the first or last state, since neither campaign would be sure of who was leading or trailing, and what the delegate count was.

4. Return to the time when the conventions were actually working sessions that hammered out compromises and the party's platform, not just coronation ceremonies for the "anointed one".

5. Return to teaching what used to be called "civics" in school, so that our voters understand what a president (or US Representative, or Senator, or Governor) can and can't do. While we are at it, teach basic economics too, so our citizens realize that the the government can't pay for every desire without taking that money from someone's pocket... and what the effect of that would be.

This primary season has been a surprise for me in a number of ways. I fear that too many of our citizens view the presidential races like a blood sport, however, instead of the very serious task of choosing our next President. My suggestions would return the serious purpose and remove some of the sport-like qualities of the contest. But in the end, it will be about winning, hopefully America winning by electing the very best candidate from the crop.

CP